DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment of 28 January 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “connecting member” in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 20, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites “at least one spanwise direction” and depends from claim 16 which recites “a spanwise direction”; it is not clear if the at least one spanwise direction in claim 20 refers to the spanwise direction recited in claim 16 or to an additional and different one. Additionally, it is not clear if there are more than one spanwise directions.
Claim 28 recites “comprising the first blade segment according to claim 13”, however, claim 13 has been canceled, rendering claim 28 indefinite. For purposes of prior art examination, claim 28 is being interpreted as reciting “according to claim 16”.
Claim 30 recites “The method of claim 14”, however, claim 14 has been canceled, rendering claim 30 indefinite. For purposes of prior art examination, claim 30 is being interpreted as reciting “The method of claim 29”.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-28 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hedges et al – hereafter Hedges – (WO 2021008666 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hedges teaches a first blade segment (24) for a segmented wind turbine rotor blade (Fig.1-13), comprising:
a spar cap (48/48b) comprising at least a first spanwise region (Fig.12/13, region of 48b left of region where 68 are located) and a second spanwise region (Fig.12/13, region of 48b where 68 are located);
a load transfer laminate arranged in the second spanwise region (Fig.12/13, laminates 60 arranged with elements 68); and
the load transfer laminate comprising fibers (page 14 line 9-11), and wherein less than 80% of the fibers are oriented in a spanwise direction of the first blade segment (Fig.12/13, note only fibers of 60 arranged in the middle, from a top to bottom orientation, are not angled (i.e., oriented in a spanwise direction), therefore the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 17, Hedges further teaches a receiver (portions of 48b located at 100) configured to receive a connecting member (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a beam, spar, spar caps to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Hedges teaches portions of 48a located at 100) of a second blade segment (22) of the segmented wind turbine rotor blade, the receiver at least partially arranged in the second spanwise region (Fig.12/13).
Regarding claim 19, Hedges further teaches the load transfer laminate comprises a flapwise thickness that is non-uniform in the spanwise direction (Fig.12/13, note region where 68 are arranged, increases flapwise thickness from left to right).
Regarding claim 20, Hedges further teaches the flapwise thickness has a maximum thickness in the second spanwise region and tapers from the maximum flapwise thickness in at least one spanwise direction (Fig.12/13).
Regarding claim 21, Hedges further teaches the fibers of the load transfer laminate are in fabric layers (page 14 line 9-13), and wherein the fabric layers comprise at least one first layer with fibers oriented in one or more first directions (Fig.12/13, note fibers of 60 arranged in the middle, from a top to bottom orientation, extend in a spanwise direction) and at least one second layer with fibers oriented in one or more second directions different from the one or more first directions (Fig.12/13, note fibers of 60 not arranged in the middle, from a top to bottom orientation, extend in a direction angled with respect to the spanwise direction).
Regarding claim 22, Hedges further teaches the fabric layers comprise a plurality of biaxial fabric layers (Fig.12/13, note fibers of 60 not arranged in the middle, from a top to bottom orientation, extend in a direction angled with respect to the spanwise direction, therefore include a component in a spanwise direction and a component in a direction perpendicular to the spanwise direction) and at least one unidirectional fabric layer (Fig.12/13, note fibers of 60 arranged in the middle, from a top to bottom orientation, extend in a spanwise direction).
Regarding claim 23, Hedges further teaches the fabric layers comprise one or more glass fiber fabric layers or one or more carbon fiber fabric layers (page 14 line 9-11).
Regarding claim 24, Hedges further teaches the second spanwise region of the spar cap comprises a tip-side end of the spar cap (Fig.2, note 24, which contains the second spanwise region, is a tip-side end of the blade, therefore, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 25, Hedges further teaches the spar cap comprises a first spar cap flapwise thickness in the first spanwise region and a second spar cap flapwise thickness in the second spanwise region (Fig.12/13, first spar cap flapwise thickness adjacent 100 region), and wherein the first spar cap flapwise thickness is larger than the second spar cap flapwise thickness (Fig.12/13).
Regarding claim 26, Hedges further teaches the spar cap is a pultruded member (page 14 line 9-13).
Regarding claim 27, Hedges further teaches an inner shell (54) and an outer shell (52), the load transfer laminate arranged between the spar cap and at least one of the inner shell or the outer shell (Fig.4/12/13), [and wherein the inner shell, the outer shell, and the load transfer laminate are formed by infusion of fiber material in a blade segment mold] ("[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."; MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 28, Hedges further teaches a segmented wind turbine rotor blade (Fig.1), comprising the first blade segment according to claim 16 (see above).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Humblot et al – hereafter Humblot – (US 20150132137 A1; also US 9,945,356 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Humblot teaches a first blade segment (1b) for a segmented wind turbine rotor blade (Fig.1-5), comprising:
a spar cap (2a/b) comprising at least a first spanwise region (region where 2b is located) and a second spanwise region (region where 2a is located);
a load transfer laminate arranged in the second spanwise region (2a); and
the load transfer laminate comprising fibers (¶80, note sole pieces produced by fibers), and wherein less than 80% of the fibers are oriented in a spanwise direction of the first blade segment (¶61/63).
Regarding claim 17, Humblot further teaches a receiver (between 2a/2b and 22) configured to receive a connecting member (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a beam, spar, spar caps to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Humblot teaches portions of 3a/3b) of a second blade segment (1a) of the segmented wind turbine rotor blade, the receiver at least partially arranged in the second spanwise region (Fig.1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humblot.
Regarding claim 18, Humblot teaches all the limitations of claim 17, see above, however, does not explicitly teach a chordwise width of the load transfer laminate is larger than a chordwise width of the receiver.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In the current instance the only difference between claim 18 and the disclosed blade segments assembly of Humblot is the relative dimensions of a chordwise width of the load transfer laminate is larger than a chordwise width of the receiver. Since Humblot has disclosed blade segments assembly with the claimed components and, if having said claimed relative dimensions between a chordwise width of the load transfer laminate is larger than a chordwise width of the receiver would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claims are not patentably distinct and said relative dimensions modification would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 29-30 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedges in view of Rodwell et al – hereafter Rodwell – (US 20240227337 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Hedges teaches a method of producing (page 11 line 20-22, page 12 line 14-23) a first blade segment (24) for a segmented wind turbine rotor blade (Fig.1-13) by arranging a component assembly in a blade segment mold (page 11 line 20-22, page 12 line 14-23), comprising:
arranging a spar cap (48/48b) in the blade segment mold, the spar cap having a first spanwise region (Fig.12/13, region of 48b left of region where 68 are located) and a second spanwise region (Fig.12/13, region of 48b where 68 are located);
arranging load transfer laminate material in the second spanwise region (Fig.12/13, laminates 60 arranged with elements 68) of the spar such that less than 80% of fibers of the load transfer laminate material are oriented in a spanwise direction (Fig.12/13, note only fibers of 60 arranged in the middle, from a top to bottom orientation, are not angled (i.e., oriented in a spanwise direction), therefore the limitation is met).
However, Hedges does not explicitly teach after arranging the component assembly in the blade segment mold, infusing the component assembly with an infusion material.
Rodwell teaches a method of manufacturing a shell of the wind turbine blade and joining a spar element to the shell of the blade during manufacturing said blade using resin infusion process (¶1). Rodwell further teaches the shell of the rotor blade is generally built around the spar caps of the blade by stacking layers of fiber fabrics in a shell mold. The layers are then typically infused together, e.g. with a thermoset resin (¶3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Hedges by after arranging the component assembly in the blade segment mold, infusing the component assembly with an infusion material based on the teachings of Rodwell because this provides a typical infusion manufacturing method via a thermoset resin.
Regarding claim 30, Hedges and Rodwell further teach before arranging the spar cap in the blade segment mold, forming the spar cap via pultrusion (Hedges page 3 line 34-35).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights